Given that bootcamp is Windows running directly on the hardware, I don't see how it could slow anything down...

Surely you weren't thinking it was virtualization?

lol no, i misread as WINE haha xD d'oh. but i imagine using an OS on a partition won't be ideal, though i have only used bootcamp 1-2 times, and can't judge on that particular case.

----------

additionally, even if macs had games like BF3(one day ), the performance @1080 is kinda low, and if you ran it at a 27 in imacs native res (2600x1440?) it would be well below 30fps (threshold to be considered smooth)

true, but we actually do know clocks of 680mx, and its pretty low tbh,.... i love macs for general use, but if you try to game on it, it will generally end in headaches.

besides most ppl are unfairly biased against windows, they compare their 1k macs with 400$, outdated machines with limited security. After getting a pc for gaming, and then protecting it properly, i find they both work equally as well, and it comes down to preferance. Most of the ppl who despise windows have had no good experience with a pc.

I don't man, I've built my own PC/Hackintosh.

Gaming in Windows 8 results in weird crashes and freezes.
Gaming in OS X results in slower performance due to worse drivers and optimizations.

]additionally, even if macs had games like BF3(one day ), the performance @1080 is kinda low, and if you ran it at a 27 in imacs native res (2600x1440?) it would be well below 30fps (threshold to be considered smooth)

It will of course depend on the game and the settings. On the 680M (because that's the easiest comparison I can pull up), BF3 came in at 36fps on Ultra at 1080p. That should be around 40fps for the 680MX, and then moving to 1440p would seem to be right around 30fps. This would be in Bootcamp of course.. you do still pay a small performance penalty for OpenGL in OS X, which many gamers (like myself) are happy to pay if given the opportunity to not use Windows. Going to merely high instead of ultra gets you to 74fps at 1080p on the 680M.

It will of course depend on the game and the settings. On the 680M (because that's the easiest comparison I can pull up), BF3 came in at 36fps on Ultra at 1080p. That should be around 40fps for the 680MX, and then moving to 1440p would seem to be right around 30fps. This would be in Bootcamp of course.. you do still pay a small performance penalty for OpenGL in OS X, which many gamers (like myself) are happy to pay if given the opportunity to not use Windows. Going to merely high instead of ultra gets you to 74fps at 1080p on the 680M.

Means from ultra @ 4AA to high no AA, so not straight comparison. But I see your point.

I still fail to see the windows hate. Yes OSX is better but windows certainly isn't bad If you know how to use it.

lol no, i misread as WINE haha xD d'oh. but i imagine using an OS on a partition won't be ideal, though i have only used bootcamp 1-2 times, and can't judge on that particular case.

----------

additionally, even if macs had games like BF3(one day ), the performance @1080 is kinda low, and if you ran it at a 27 in imacs native res (2600x1440?) it would be well below 30fps (threshold to be considered smooth)

I watched some game videos on youtube, and there's this guy playing BF3 on a stock 2011 iMac with 12GB RAM. It looked pretty good to me.

Means from ultra @ 4AA to high no AA, so not straight comparison. But I see your point.

I still fail to see the windows hate. Yes OSX is better but windows certainly isn't bad If you know how to use it.

I had to use my wife's Windows box for Civ this past weekend because my old iMac is still dead and my new iMac isn't ordered yet. I wanted to scream and poke my eyes out at the same time, just fending off the army of browser toolbars so I could get drivers updated etc.

Windows is definitely more flexible if you're willing to put the time into it. I'm not. I want my time on my computer to be using it, not administrating it. With rare exception my Macs just run themselves without me needing to intervene.

Not one that looks as nice, is as thin, and is fully laminated. I think the last one will make the image on this pop more than before. Haven't seen one yet, but looking forward to it. Factory calibrationsjould also be good for us without calibrationgear.

I have 24" dell and 30" LG now and id trade both in for one of these 27" models.

The ones I had seen were played with high or max settings, I believe some even in native resolution, and it was still playable. Speaking about caring, I personally don't, when it comes to Battlefield 3.

Edit: never mind, I read up on your previous posts, I had initially thought you were somebody concerned he couldn't play his game on the new iMacs. Now I realize that you're obviously a computer engineer, who worked on designing the new iMacs. Thanks for all those unbiased tips on what's best for people : )

All you need for gaming are a 3570k, something in the neighborhood of a 7950/660Ti/670, and a good SSD/HDD combo.

Would upgrade to a new PC, but temptation to wait for Haswell is too strong, and there's also the matter of a separate monitor.

If nothing else, iMacs have great resell. I'm tempted to go for the 680MX. The real question for me is whether or not the new iMacs can be taken in and drive swapped. I want an SSD as a boot drive but don't want Fusion (won't dualboot on SSD from what I hear) so I'm thinking of using the HDD externally to get around it.

All that money and it still only runs boring old Windows in an ugly plastic box.

Pass.

Macs do look nice, but you have to face the facts: a $1000 desktop PC can outperform the $2500 iMac. Maybe if they didn't decide to try and make the beast as thin as possible, it could use something besides mobile GPUs. Heat is and always will be the #1 problem with them. Oh and BTW I have a 2011 iMac 27" so I'm no hater. I just enjoy running OS X on my tri-screen PC as well.

Macs do look nice, but you have to face the facts: a $1000 desktop PC can outperform the $2500 iMac. Maybe if they didn't decide to try and make the beast as thin as possible, it could use something besides mobile GPUs. Heat is and always will be the #1 problem with them. Oh and BTW I have a 2011 iMac 27" so I'm no hater. I just enjoy running OS X on my tri-screen PC as well.

Macs do look nice, but you have to face the facts: a $1000 desktop PC can outperform the $2500 iMac. Maybe if they didn't decide to try and make the beast as thin as possible, it could use something besides mobile GPUs. Heat is and always will be the #1 problem with them. Oh and BTW I have a 2011 iMac 27" so I'm no hater. I just enjoy running OS X on my tri-screen PC as well.

I was trying to configure a PC before the iMacs were announced, but always landed at around 1,300 - 1,600, without the display. I wasn't seriously looking into the PC option though, since I've been wanting to switch to OSX and have a desktop again.

If games had been my priority I probably would have ended up building a PC, but the iMac has so many advantages for me, that anything else wouldn't provide me the same value. I get a gorgeous and huge display, a great current CPU, fusion drive, OSX, the currently fastest mobile GPU which will let me play current and future games at high resolutions and settings plus the option to still use Windows 7. I've had a 16" Laptop (which actually was quite awesome, sold it in anticipation of iMacs at the time) until June and am currently "working" with a Chromebook. So for me, this machine is a vast improvement. A 2011 low-end 27 would have been. For somebody with a tri-SLI 680 System and a oc'd CPU ... not so much ; )

Not one that looks as nice, is as thin, and is fully laminated. I think the last one will make the image on this pop more than before. Haven't seen one yet, but looking forward to it. Factory calibrationsjould also be good for us without calibrationgear.

I have 24" dell and 30" LG now and id trade both in for one of these 27" models.

All displays are calibrated to some degree at the factory. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be able to get usable results even with a colorimeter. Factory grade equipment is much more accurate than a $100-200 consumer device. Also displays far better than that one are still calibrated or profiled on a regular basis if you want to maintain a semi consistent target. You are just speculating on all of that.

The 680 video card for the PC from what I have read/reviewed does become very warm/hot - requiring heavy circulation and adequate case capacity.
Perhaps, the above could be due to the driver code not optimized but I imagine it would be somewhat similar for the new iMac.
Additionally, In time via the forum we will gain a better understanding from users.

All displays are calibrated to some degree at the factory. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be able to get usable results even with a colorimeter. Factory grade equipment is much more accurate than a $100-200 consumer device. Also displays far better than that one are still calibrated or profiled on a regular basis if you want to maintain a semi consistent target. You are just speculating on all of that.

Likewise. Can't wait for a technical review from somebody like Anandtech.